Stoner Weapon System replacement?

[welsh]

I really liked the Stoner Weapon system from 3rd edition rule and thought they made sense. I also understand Stoner weapons were frequently used by SEAL teams in Vietnam, but that they tended to be kind of expensive and suffered frequent jams. A talented, experienced and sophisticated unit like SEALs might be able to avoid the malfunction problems, but a Morrow Team generally doesn't have elite troops.

So do you have suggestions for a replacement system for the Stoner weapon systems?

I am also wondering what do you folks think about changing the cartridge from 5.56 mm to .308 for carbines or battle rifles?

[mikeo80]

IMHO, this is why the A-Team mentioned in Ruins of Chicago has M-14's. Much heavier than M-16's. But it uses 7.62 (Or 30-06, your choice)

My $0.02

Mike

[ArmySGT.]

Kevin Dockery apparently had a huge dislike for the M16 series. As he is a Viet Nam veteran I can fully sympathize. The introduction really did cost some Troops their lives.

The Stoner system is pretty unique. As a system the whole kit really does make some sense. No unit is really going to field the whole assemblage and there wasn't a single county that was going to scrap their arsenal for such a system.

The SEALs employed the Stoner MK 23. The belt fed light machinegun. This fulfilled their niche for a belt fed light support weapon. There wasn't a lot of choice for a light 5.56 machine gun in the late 60's.

I don't use it. I am writing my own combat loads based on Team assignment.

Rifleman (most common), Radio Operator, Team Leader, Field Scientist, First Contact, Light support, Vehicle crewman, etc, etc, etc.

Basing that weapons load out around the job description. Things like the M202 wouldn't be a primary load. That is mission specific equipment, same for the FIM-92 stinger.

Do I like the Stoner system? Yes. Do I use it in the game? Only if the PCs want to play a vintage game.

As for going up in caliber. No. 5.56 will get the job done and basically you get two 5.56 for one 7.62 considering weight. If you are really concerned about damage the Morrow Project is a private organization and not bound by Geneva/Hague, hollow points are in then.

[bobcat]

honestly there aren't many weapons systems with the level of interchangeability of the Stoner. figuring the project would desire the capability to adjust the weapon to the mission as events change i could suggest either the G36 series or the ACR as they have similar capabilities if you want to modernise them and keep that ability.(although you will loose the belt fed option you get a 100rd drum instead.)

[welsh]

Thanks guys. I had been thinking about the .303 vs 5.56 round simply because it seems more .303 carbines or battle rifles are coming into the market. Sgt. I agree about the issue of weight, and normally I like a game in which restrictions are tight on players, but given the cargo capacity of the Project, I am unsure whether the difference would be that substantial. A friend, an army colonel, prefers the .303 round simply because it is more effective in the field. Married with a more precise rifle, it would seem a good balance of both worlds, but I am unsure.

With regard to the Stoner system, what got me thinking about it was that the Stoner was a rare system and not a perfect system- although favored by SEAL teams in Vietnam. Stoner seemed to be ahead of his time. What got me thinking about this was the M4 system and accessories - SOPMOD 1 and 2 and M4 MWS as kits that allow for adaptability for a weapon that is widely used. That's a leap before a light machine gun.

[ArmySGT.]

Welsh,

.303 is the British rimmed case of WW2 fame for the Lee Enfields and BREN guns.

I think you mean .30 cartridges and there are many that have that bullet diameter and vary widely on case length and capacity.

I think you are going for 7.62 NATO as your cartridge? A .30 on a battle rifle capacity brass casing being 7.62x51mm vs 30.06 a .30 on a larger capacity case the 7.62x63mm

I can see the reasoning for a .30 caliber battle rifle. .30 was the smallest caliber deemed possible by the U.S. Army Ordnance department that could still drop a charging horse pre-WW1.

Shoots through 30 inches of pine boards, etc.

Having a precise rifle paired with good ammo and a good scope is great but, the reality is that not everyone gets to be a sniper shooting without being detected.

[welsh]

Hey Sgt-
My mistype sorry. I am thinking of .308 cartridge or 7.62 NATO round. My bad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.308_Winchester
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62%C3%9751mm_NATO

Had not even been thinking of the .30-06 cartridge.
I can see the advantage of the greater ammo load with the 5.56. I am guessing availability is about the same. But quality?

[kato13]

Personally I go with 6.8mm for rifles and 10mm for pistols as I figure the Morrow logistical system will pretty much start from scratch.

This will make for less of an impact on a society if a teams cache is discovered, by someone with less than pure motives. Anyone who who comes across such ammo would have a much harder time finding weapons to use them when compared to 5.56, 7.62 and 9mm.

Yes they could be re-manufactured, but that would take resources that I would hope would be limited to a settlement and not to marauders.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by welsh

Hey Sgt-
My mistype sorry. I am thinking of .308 cartridge or 7.62 NATO round. My bad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.308_Winchester
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62%C3%9751mm_NATO

Had not even been thinking of the .30-06 cartridge.
I can see the advantage of the greater ammo load with the 5.56. I am guessing availability is about the same. But quality?

Ah, Similar dimensions, different SAAMI specifications.

Shooting .308 winchester in your 7.62 NATO battle rifle is possible..... However in older rifles you could run into problems.

.308 Winchester has a CUP pressure of 62,000 pounds whereas, 7.62 NATO is loaded to a CUP pressure of 50,000 pounds.

In 90s vintage M14s or AR-10s with 90s era metallurgy probably not much other than different points of impact due to different velocities.

has been known to bend operating rods, shear extractor pins, and damage bolts of 60's era M14s.

Same can happen shooting heavier bullets. 7.62 NATO uses a 150 grain bullet. .308 Win comes a variety of flavors (aka heavier and lighter bullets). Also sometimes with heavier bullets you get a longer overall case length which creates failure to feed problems in autoloaders.

[welsh]

Hey Sgt-

Thanks for the info. My thinking on this had more to do with the abundance of ammo that might be available but also that there are probably a fair amount of .308 rifles out there. But given the popularity of 5.56 carbines, perhaps that's a wash.

The issue of weight and carrying capacity vs penetration. But what you are pointing out really puts a dent on .308. But they do seem to be growing in popularity in the civilian market.

So you stick with the 5.56? Would not go with a .308 or 7.62? I am thinking more 4th gen rules than 3rd gen.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by welsh

Hey Sgt-

Thanks for the info. My thinking on this had more to do with the abundance of ammo that might be available but also that there are probably a fair amount of .308 rifles out there. But given the popularity of 5.56 carbines, perhaps that's a wash.

The issue of weight and carrying capacity vs penetration. But what you are pointing out really puts a dent on .308. But they do seem to be growing in popularity in the civilian market.

So you stick with the 5.56? Would not go with a .308 or 7.62? I am thinking more 4th gen rules than 3rd gen.

Two things you want; a lot of bullets, and water.

Seven magazines for an M-14 (20x7) 140 rounds. Seven magazines for an M-16A2 (30x7) 210 rounds.

The M-14 does more damage, definitely. The thing is more ammunition is expended to force the other guy to keep his head down or flee then actually hit them. Suppressive fire.

I like the 7.62 NATO blasts through small trees, shatters brickwork, busts car engine blocks, the armor piercing ammo blows through soviet vests and penetrates 1/4 plate..... Lots to love.

I just focus the teams around 5.56mm and 9mm because of the abundance and magazine compatibility. I also revise the 20kg load to reflect the Team position. Absolutely no sense that a driver would be the Machine gunner and a mechanic carries a Dragon ATGM.

[ArmySGT.]

From the rule books I toss out a couple of weapons..... The Stoner system, the Mac-10, the HK 69, the M60. The rifles and carbines are replaced by the M16A1 or M16A2 or the M4/M4A1. The Uzi meets the SMG needs. The MAG does everything the M60 does and is the coaxial on all MP vehicles anyway. The M79 is fielded instead of the HK69 and is necessary for the rocket grapnel in the mountaineering pack. The FN Minimi (SAW) or the Ultimax 100 fit for the Automatic rifle role.

[bobcat]

as for the problems that plagued the Stoner in its early development most of those were because of the same crappy ammo production that plagued most 5.56mm weapons of that era. as for changing caliber i doubt there are any weapons systems in any other caliber that are even half a capable. please someone correct me if i'm wrong because i would love to find a system like the stoner in .308.

[welsh]

Thanks for the thoughts.

Bobcat- As for a 7.62 or .308 weapon system like the Stoner- honestly, I can see a better argument for that being developed by Morrow than fusion powered cars, but that would require some creativity by the game manager.

Sgt- interesting choices. I agree about your thoughts on ammo and water, and the importance of suppressive fire. If the team could offset ammo weight with reduced weight in gear, would that change your balance?

Playing a more updated game, I agree with you about dropping the Mac-10, HK69, and the M-60. Why not an HK MP5 instead of the Uzi? Interesting choice with the Ultimax-100. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimax_100 . ANy thoughts on the HK416? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HK416

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by welsh

Thanks for the thoughts.

Sgt- interesting choices. I agree about your thoughts on ammo and water, and the importance of suppressive fire. If the team could offset ammo weight with reduced weight in gear, would that change your balance?

Playing a more updated game, I agree with you about dropping the Mac-10, HK69, and the M-60. Why not an HK MP5 instead of the Uzi? Interesting choice with the Ultimax-100. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimax_100 . ANy thoughts on the HK416? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HK416

The weight of equipment has been a problem since basic issue was a loincloth and a wooden club.

It is funny, everytime ounces are cut from something to ease the load, then those ounces are transferred to something else.

A player can take a 7.62 NATO rifle and 10 magazines. They just have to pay the encumbrance penalty for a basic load over 20kg.

Personally, I think the encumbrance load should be reflected as a percentage of a persons total body weight. A male athlete weighing 275 would suffer less encumbrance than a male athlete weighing 150.

I like the MP-5, and the HK weapons are prevalent throughout. I prefer the Uzis more compact size and hand meets fist loading that the magazine through the grip affords. The HK roller block action is excellent, I am just not a fan of the "rock to lock" magazine release system.

To me the Uzi meets all the needs of the SMG and fielding only one burdens the supply system less. Issued for drivers, doctors, scientists, and optional for medics.

The HK 416 and has nice capabilities. I just feel it was introduced to late for the Project to have made it something common enough for issue.

[.45cultist]

There is a company that makes an MG upper for the M4/M16, not Atchisson, a newer variant. I'll remember when I log off..... Besides, the Stoner links are unique, like the M85's .50 links. The newer system uses links for the M249 and the SAW used by the KFS. This and it's cantankerous nature are why I dropped the M85 from my games.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by .45cultist

There is a company that makes an MG upper for the M4/M16, not Atchisson, a newer variant. I'll remember when I log off..... Besides, the Stoner links are unique, like the M85's .50 links. The newer system uses links for the M249 and the SAW used by the KFS. This and it's cantankerous nature are why I dropped the M85 from my games.

Are you thinking of the "Shrike" ?

Shrike Machinegun

[.45cultist]

Yes, I think so. I like the KCB-70 bayonet, Eickhorn quit production before I could get another one!

[Project_Sardonicus]

Interesting, most modern post 1970s assault rifles were designed with a squad automatic weapon version as well. And almost universally no one uses it [well the UK uses the saw version of the SA80 as a kind of designated marks man weapon but that's probably because of how expensive it was]

Most nations use the Minimi with a few very similar weapons like the Negev or the Ultimax.

Automatic fire longish range, in a compact package that one man can carry.

But in any kind of combat situation there's been a preference for 7.62 designated marks man rifles and light machine guns in 7.62 of all descriptions. As insurgents with RPGs and Lightmachine guns had a range of advantage.

So the Morrow teams choice of weapons is an interesting. It has to be light, portable and effective. Without allowing a group of angry militia with hunting rifles in 3006 to shoot them to pieces from a distance.

So I guess first of all as of the 1980s all Stoner systems are gone, too heavy and unreliable.

And probably most infantry units, are 2 M4s, one with a grenade launcher one as a DSM, a minimi and a 7.62 DSM rifle.

[.45cultist]

Originally Posted by Project_Sardonicus

Interesting, most modern post 1970s assault rifles were designed with a squad automatic weapon version as well. And almost universally no one uses it [well the UK uses the saw version of the SA80 as a kind of designated marks man weapon but that's probably because of how expensive it was]

Most nations use the Minimi with a few very similar weapons like the Negev or the Ultimax.

Automatic fire longish range, in a compact package that one man can carry.

But in any kind of combat situation there's been a preference for 7.62 designated marks man rifles and light machine guns in 7.62 of all descriptions. As insurgents with RPGs and Lightmachine guns had a range of advantage.

So the Morrow teams choice of weapons is an interesting. It has to be light, portable and effective. Without allowing a group of angry militia with hunting rifles in 3006 to shoot them to pieces from a distance.

So I guess first of all as of the 1980s all Stoner systems are gone, too heavy and unreliable.

And probably most infantry units, are 2 M4s, one with a grenade launcher one as a DSM, a minimi and a 7.62 DSM rifle.

"Desert Search" said the M16A2's were purchased as the Stoners ran out.

[Project_Sardonicus]

An M16A2 as a replacement for a LMG might work if the project is planning on invading Endor.
Well that wouldn't work out all that well for the Galactic Empire.

[.45cultist]

Originally Posted by welsh

Thanks for the thoughts.

Bobcat- As for a 7.62 or .308 weapon system like the Stoner- honestly, I can see a better argument for that being developed by Morrow than fusion powered cars, but that would require some creativity by the game manager.

Sgt- interesting choices. I agree about your thoughts on ammo and water, and the importance of suppressive fire. If the team could offset ammo weight with reduced weight in gear, would that change your balance?

Playing a more updated game, I agree with you about dropping the Mac-10, HK69, and the M-60. Why not an HK MP5 instead of the Uzi? Interesting choice with the Ultimax-100. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimax_100 . ANy thoughts on the HK416? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HK416

4TH Ed. has the MP5 in the Project Weapons, The M249 is found in the Survivor's Weapons section and in the module "Fall Back" which repeats the Survivor's Weapons chart.

[Rockwolf66]

I'm not a fan of the Ultimak 100. The Mark II version used Proprietary magazines and during testing by the US Navy 25% of all stoppages were the drum falling out.

Plus magazines are not what is needed is any serious sustained fire roll.

Personally I believe that the Ares Shrike is a better idea as it's much more modular in design.

[.45cultist]

I think the Shrike can even use P-Rails and thier options, some PC will want to mount an M203 below one!

[Ieqo]

I tend to resist any temptation to replace the Stoner 63 system. It is iconic of the Project. It is easy to simply say that Project planners in the 60s and 70s bought/stole/somehow acquired the original machinist drawings from Eugene Stoner and their armorers were able to solve the reliability issues. Hell, maybe they recruited Eugene Stoner, himself.

But no, the Stoners, the Browning Hi-Powers, and the XR-311s are part of the Project zeitgeist for me. Over the years folks have taken to the internet with "improved" weapon loads (one fellow in particular must have owned stock in H&K or something because his Project was all H&K, all the time), lots of HMMWV variants suggested, etc. Nope. Keep the Stoners, the Brownings, and the 311s. It keeps the "feel" of the Project firmly in the realm of "A Bunch Of Eggheads Trying To Be The Peace Corps With Guns", rather than drifting into "Full-Blown Paramilitary Organization That Claims To Have Altruistic Goals".

[Project_Sardonicus]

You know you're right.

I got 4th edition and all the body armour and M4s made teams look like any kind of modern military unit.

The projects, eccentric mix of gear is far more pleasing.

Especially the what the heck were they thinking factor with some stuff.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Rockwolf66

I'm not a fan of the Ultimak 100. The Mark II version used Proprietary magazines and during testing by the US Navy 25% of all stoppages were the drum falling out.

Plus magazines are not what is needed is any serious sustained fire roll.

Personally I believe that the Ares Shrike is a better idea as it's much more modular in design.

Fills the role of the Automatic Rifle, like the Browning Automatic Rifle. Short engagement times and controlled bursts. Long engagement, sustained fire, and suppression are the role of the Machinegun.

Using the Ultimax 100 differentiates the Project from U.S. Government forces. Something else that could be manufactured in quantity overseas without U.S. government knowledge then shipped in surreptitiously.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Ieqo

I tend to resist any temptation to replace the Stoner 63 system. It is iconic of the Project. It is easy to simply say that Project planners in the 60s and 70s bought/stole/somehow acquired the original machinist drawings from Eugene Stoner and their armorers were able to solve the reliability issues. Hell, maybe they recruited Eugene Stoner, himself.

But no, the Stoners, the Browning Hi-Powers, and the XR-311s are part of the Project zeitgeist for me. Over the years folks have taken to the internet with "improved" weapon loads (one fellow in particular must have owned stock in H&K or something because his Project was all H&K, all the time), lots of HMMWV variants suggested, etc. Nope. Keep the Stoners, the Brownings, and the 311s. It keeps the "feel" of the Project firmly in the realm of "A Bunch Of Eggheads Trying To Be The Peace Corps With Guns", rather than drifting into "Full-Blown Paramilitary Organization That Claims To Have Altruistic Goals".

So with the 4th Edition rewrite you're advocating for the 2017 timeline but, with a Morrow Project utilizing 1970s and early 1980s tech levels?

You know this drops the Projects Tech Level, right? Gives the Rich Five and the Frozen Chosen an advantage.

Probably means the Snake Eaters are worse of 1970s and 1960s tech level.

With only cryotubes, early fusion plants, and lasers just making the cut.

Do able, probably fun too. However, most people picking up the 4th edition are not 40, 50, or 60 years plus and nostalgic like we are. They don't get it because they never lived it.

[ArmySGT.]

Moreover, I expect the Morrow Project to be the "Early Adopters". The ones that give it a try, even when they know there will be glitches and production problems.

Do expect them to use current and in use materials and equipment? Yes, the costs come down significantly when done so. I also expect them to take foolish risks like MK2 lasers and HAAM suits, man portable 1kt fusion backpack bombs, or autogyros.

I also expect the Morrow Project to ignore NATO procurement rules and the consensus thinking of the Military Industrial Complex.

I expect the Morrow Project to define their own needs, wants, and parameters. To choose among what is offered and what has to be built in house to fill it.

The Dreamers vs the Accountants in a winner takes all; Death Match!

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Project_Sardonicus

Interesting, most modern post 1970s assault rifles were designed with a squad automatic weapon version as well. And almost universally no one uses it [well the UK uses the saw version of the SA80 as a kind of designated marks man weapon but that's probably because of how expensive it was]

Most nations use the Minimi with a few very similar weapons like the Negev or the Ultimax.

Automatic fire longish range, in a compact package that one man can carry.

But in any kind of combat situation there's been a preference for 7.62 designated marks man rifles and light machine guns in 7.62 of all descriptions. As insurgents with RPGs and Lightmachine guns had a range of advantage.

So the Morrow teams choice of weapons is an interesting. It has to be light, portable and effective. Without allowing a group of angry militia with hunting rifles in 3006 to shoot them to pieces from a distance.

So I guess first of all as of the 1980s all Stoner systems are gone, too heavy and unreliable.

And probably most infantry units, are 2 M4s, one with a grenade launcher one as a DSM, a minimi and a 7.62 DSM rifle.

I heard a rumor that the French are upgunning their tracked and wheeled APCs. The .50 BMGs are being outranged by Islamic Insurgents with ZSU-23-2s mounted in toyota pickups (technicals) on a regular basis.